yo daz racizt son

This blog entry is worthless. Don't read it.

One of the things that really, truly pains me to think about is discrimination. I don't mean the PC-bullshit. I'm talking about actual discrimination. Why? Because, political leaders and opportunists are dividing us by perpetuating this notion of 'race'. When I say 'race', I'm talking about things that are easily visible as racial identifiers, such as having single-hooded eyelids or something. This is what people are talking about when they talk about 'race'. In reality, race is more complicated than that. A Spanish person is not the same as a Polish person. A Chinese person is not the same as a Thai person. Those are different races.

Another racial identifier is global region. If I point out that China and Thailand are different, the argument will be made that they are 'both mongoloid' and 'both in the same global region'. This is marginally true since Asia is a fucking huge continent, but sure. They're both East Asian, I can grant anyone that. The fact of the matter, though, is that Asian-Americans, on average, make more money and have better educations that the 'white' people in the United States. And people in the United States, per capita, make better wages than their transpacific counterparts.

So, why are Asians in the U.S. doing so well, and Asians in Asia lagging behind?

The 'big picture' answer is rooted in human history. Places that have been able to thrive by avoiding war, famine, disease, and so on, have been able to build better educational systems, and better economic systems. A great example of this is the Roman Empire, and although Rome clashed with the Parthan Empire, and Germanic tribes, the interior of the empire was able to advance greatly in terms of education, wealth, and technology. The collapse of Rome saw the end of a golden era of human development in that region, and was replaced by centuries of mass illiteracy, serfdom, extreme poverty, high infant mortality rates, and non-existent sanitation.

Typically, nomadic peoples and hunter-gatherer-based nations have performed poorly in terms of technological development. Slightly more advanced nations would build small towns (and occasionally, some decent-sized cities, like Cahokia) and would send out larger parties of men to go hunt, or to raid nearby enemies. While fighting each other, nomadic peoples have been stunted in terms of technological and economic growth. However, the nomad does not value the advancement of technology, nor has an interest in amassing wealth.
During the middle ages in Europe, the Han Dynasty in East Asia was the hub of technological advancement, but, like Rome, succumbed to invaders and its own internal corruption. Genghis Khan united the Mongol tribes to the north and then smashed the Han Dynasty. The Mongols, while united, built the Silk Road and used plunder from China to trade with Europeans. An unfortunate side-effect of this trade was that diseases from the Far East devastated Europe, killing approximately one-third of the population of Europe. While Europe recovered from the Black Death, the Mongol Empire crumbled away, and Turkish nomads invaded the Middle East and brought down the power that the Arabs had amassed in the world, giving Europe a window of time to recoup.

The Turks invaded Eastern Europe and while war was waged there, the west of Europe experience the renaissance. Spain and Portugal rose quickly to power, followed by Britain, then France, and The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Russia, and Austria.

Wars of total annihilation, with burning whole cities to the ground, plunder, mass rape, killing off whole populations to prevent revolt, and many of the more destructive elements of prior wars became less and less prevalent in western Europe. After the Napoleonic Wars, the European powers began forging alliances to prevent any one nation from becoming too powerful and swallowing up the other powers in Europe. The rest of the world, however, was fair game, and France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and Italy began carving up the globe among themselves. The technological advancements that were allowed to bloom in an uninhibited manner gave European nations an upper hand in terms of population, organization, and weaponry that could be sent to subdue weaker nations that were still fighting among each other. Most of Africa and North America was still populated by hunter-gatherer nations, and as they fell one by one, it allowed Britain to snowball into a huge empire, and annex India and portions of the Middle East.

If history is any indicator, it is likely that the Han Dynasty, should it have prevailed against the Mongols, could stay dominant, and develop the technology to create a modern society, and conquer a weak European continent.

Racism, however, denies the influence of human history, and places the current condition of various ethnic divisions squarely on their own shoulders. While Africa is no longer under European rule, many of that continent's leaders are puppets installed by British, French, and other nations' governments. The valuable resources of many nations around the world do not belong to the people of those nations, but rather, belong to multinational corporations based in foreign countries. If a 'third-world' leader steps out of line and declares that he will not put up with foreign powers interfering and stealing from his country, his opposition will be armed and sent to throw him out of power. As a result, these countries are left in squalor. The dictators of these nations sit comfortably in decadent palaces while their people struggle to eat. The education system leaves most of the population illiterate, so that they have little choice but to work in manufacturing, farming, or serve in the army.

The rich nations of the world stuff their faces with food grown in South America, wear clothes made in Southeast Asia, drive cars from precious metals from Africa, and use computers made in China, then brag about the splendid and enlightened civilization that they've created.

Now, the reason I say this is because of this growing movement of White Nationalism in the west; an unabashed, bold, politically incorrect movement to counter what they perceive as a growing threat of "white genocide". This movement has many fundamentally flawed beliefs, and I will start by addressing the most ironic one:

1. "The Holocaust did not happen"

Not all white nationalists subscribe to this belief, but have hypothesized simultaneously that there is a conspiracy to annihilate every caucasian man, woman, and child off the face of the earth, AND a conspiracy to invent a fake genocide of the Jewish people in order for... the reasons generally vary, but the ones I hear the most often are: "To create the state of Israel", "To give the Jews immunity from racial criticism", "To create a Holocaust-based marketing scheme" (Getting victim-shekels)

Antisemitism is a recurring theme of white nationalism, with the accusation that the Jews are collaborating in some plot to destroy the "white race". To what benefit doing so would afford the Jews (who are overwhelmingly white) is unknown to me.

The Holocaust denial, from what I can see, is centered around antisemitism, cherry-picking, and confirmation bias. Facts about the Holocaust are often omitted or misrepresented, either due to deliberate misinformation, or brutal ignorance. The propensity to look for proof of what we already believe to be true seems to be a universal human characteristic, and so, I do not think there is a 'conspiracy' of misinformation against Jewish people, but rather, that antisemitic individuals are convinced that there is a hidden enemy, conspiring against them, that they must expose.


2. White Nordic people are responsible for many of the good things we have in life, and that brown people from third-world countries ruin this.

Again, not a universal white nationalist view. Many white nationalists advocate for separation of races, because the cultural differences are too great for reasonable compromises to be made. Some take it a step further, and mock non-whites (i.e., "Here's a picture of Michelle Obama.", and we see a picture of a gorilla wearing a dress; "Here's a picture of a European woman.", we basically see Maria Sharapova. The caption reads: "Which one do you think is 'beautiful'?" as if I'd go "Hey, that primate looks pretty sexy.") while glorifying whiteness.

Unlike SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS, I don't think there is anything wrong with being light-skinned. I don't think there is anything with being proud of where you're from. I also think Nordic people are beautiful. I mean, goddamn, I'd love to walk around with gold hair and blue eyes, too. (For the record, I'm happy with who I am. :p) I think people from all around the world have their own beautiful and ugly people.

But what is "white"? The exact definition changes depending on who you ask, or who you reference, but I will say this: there are Greek people that are darker-skinned than Barack Obama, but they're European. Italians, Albanians, Spaniards, Portuguese - these people spend a lot of time in the sun, and are quite tan. But they're European. This is why the definition is often switched from simply "European" to "Nordic", but there are many 'white' people who don't fall under that umbrella, including: Poles, Lithuanians, Magyars, Urdu, Russians, the goddamn Irish, French, Slavs, and so on. Not to mention and reiterate how white most Jewish people are, but also, how there are hundreds of millions of Latin Americans who descended from ancestors in Spain. The people in the Caucasus mountains aren't considered to be 'Caucasian'; the Armenians, Turks, Kurds, Iranians (yes, literally the Aryans), Azerbaijani, Georgian, and Assyrian people are considered 'non-whites' by many white nationalists. And, furthermore, there are a lot of people living in China, Japan, and Korea who are pretty damn pale. Their eyes are just different. They're definitely not "white", though.

White doesn't mean much if the term is ambiguous. If it's skin, there are people from Korea who share the same levels of pigmentation. If it's ancestral origin, then well, we all started off in Africa, WHICH WOULD TECHNICALLY MAKE EVERYBODY AFRICAN. If it's just "I don't like groups of people who don't share my beliefs and culture", then you're going to find out really quickly that within our local communities, that we have profound differences with each other. You can have a generations-long blood-feud with your neighbor.

If it's just "I don't like Muslims", well, I understand. I don't like that religion (or any of them) very much either.


3. "Europe for the Europeans, Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians"

This makes sense until we realize that we all have to share the same planet. The Americans tried to escape into space, but found out there is no air out there, so they had to come back.

Even if we don't live together across the street, we'll still need to find a way to understand each other and not try to kill each other. Also, Asia is connected to Europe. Technically, Asia was connected to Africa until the construction of the Suez Canal. But yeah, Eurasia for the Eurasians doesn't sound as appealing. Frankly, there are thousands of cultures across Eurasia. So saying "Asia for Asians" is like cleaning your house by saying "We're just going to throw everything grey into this bin, everything green into this bin, and everything white into this bin." It doesn't work like that. Stuff needs to be organized in a logical manner, and people need to live together in a way that makes sense, not "Let's just stuff all these people into this corner here", because it will not work. It never has in any part of history. Every forced migration in history has resulted in overwhelming misery and death.



I don't like the notion of race. I know it exists, because of the way we see ourselves, and identify ourselves with others, but it doesn't have to divide us to the point where we want to kill each other. Killing each other won't bring our goddamn honey back.

Note that I have not said something like "White people suck" or "White Nationalists are our enemy" or something retarded like that. I'm not trying to sway people to find any 'enemy'. All I'm asking is for people to try to understand why the world is the way it is today. That's it. I'm not proposing to overthrow all of Capitalism, or anything extremist like that. I also do not advocate for the censorship of speech, so of course, I am not making any proposal about what can and cannot be said or thought. If I disagree with you, of course I will argue with you. But I have to cover some of the bases before people turn into amateur psychologists and try to find my subconscious ulterior motives.

All this boils down to is: If you see Africans living in poverty, it's because they got shit on during history. Sorry, Africa, you got shat on.

So, that's pretty much it, cunts.